You’re looking so well darling, you really are. I don't know what sort of cream they put on you down at the morgue but I want some.

The Grand Budapest
Hotel is a dizzying medley of all that is finest in Wes Anderson’s films.
Which is to say, if you aren’t a fan already this is highly unlikely to convert
you. Except, perhaps, by virtue of its pace. A madcap escalation of stories
within stories, episodic incidents, arch dialogue, eccentric characters, and musical
staging, all set against his familiar tableau compositions, Anderson’s latest
film is an irresistible feast that serves its final course long before you’re
in danger of feeling bloated. One might argue this isn’t a terribly deep film, its
undercurrents shy of announcing themselves too forcefully, but then Anderson’s
is surface detail of the highest order.

The director’s films are generally suffused with a
melancholy at odds with the featherweight whimsy in which they revel. The Grand Budapest Hotel is no exception
in this regard. But, there’s an additional factor at work here. Through fully
embracing characters and scenarios that speak in bold and cartoonish broad
strokes, Anderson has to taken a further step away from any semblance of
naturalism, seemingly emboldened to present exactly the heightened milieu he
favours by his (not wholly successful, depending on your love of the Roald Dahl
source material) recent foray into animation, The Fantastic Mr Fox. His closest previous live action approximation
to this kind of hermetically fashioned world is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but that picture beached
through a listless lack of forward momentum. Hotel has pace and energy in abundance. Its ensemble sensibility,
focused on a single character around whom the others revolve, recalls his best
film The Royal Tenenbaums, and this
is his best film since. It may not have the heart of that picture, but one
would have to ignore Hotel’s
distinctive and abundant merits to see that as a deficiency.

I won’t attempt to sound knowledgeable about Anderson’s
inspiration, Austrian writer Stefan Zweig (tie-in, repackaged highlights of his
work have been published in the wake of film’s release). Anderson sets the bulk
of Hotel in the 1930s, when Zweig was
at the height of his popularity. He was the world’s most translated author,
although he never caught on in Britain and has even received some particularly his share of scathing critiques (as, of course, some
dissenters have accused Anderson of a pervading lack of substance); "each sentence incredibly pretentious, false and empty – the whole thing a complete void". The
director has taken the film’s Russian doll structure from the author; a tale
within a tale within a tale. A girl in the present day reads a memoir at the
memorial of its author. Said author is then seen in 1985 in the form of Tom
Wilkinson, who relates his encounter in 1968, in the form of Jude Law, with the
Hotel’s owner Zero Moustafa (the splendid F Murray Abraham, finally getting
some big screen roles lately deserving of his talents). In turn, Zero recounts
how he came to inherit the Hotel (a dilapidated, undernourished establishment in
the ‘60s). It is at this point events displace to 1932, where concierge M.
Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes, enters the scene; a time when Zero (Tony
Revolori) is a mere bellhop.

Anderson has little interest in realism or authenticity;
mood and tone is everything. So M. Gustave is the epitome of English etiquette
and manners, a more animated take on Jeeves whose veneer is periodically
shattered when he reveals the existentially despairing and sometimes uncouth
sentiments beneath (which are made all the more amusing for Fiennes’ mannered,
fey delivery). Edward Norton appears as Henckels of the military police,
nursing his native accent. And why not? The hotel is located in the fictional
Republic of Zubrowka after all, a realm identified by architecture and
machinery that look almost exactly like models (because that’s what they are).
Anderson delights in the artifice of his
world; there are underlying themes concerning the rise of fascism, intruding on
this just-so idyll (Zweig committed suicide in 1942, despairing at the fate
that had befallen Europe), but they are never allowed to overpower Hotel’s studied frivolousness. I was
going to express the sad resignation that it takes an American to write a
lovely caricature of English starch and entitlement these days, probably due to
pervading middle class embarrassment at the implications of espousing such airs
and presumptions. But he co-wrote the script with British artist Hugo Guinness.
Still, the general point remains. The truth is, much of the best British comedy
is to be found in variants on rotters, cads, scoundrels and bounders, a
celebration and evisceration of shallow aristocracy, from Terry-Thomas and
Dennis Price to Peter Cook and the Python/Oxbridge set of the ‘60s and beyond.
Now posh means Michael McIntyre. The hilarity of Fiennes’ Gustav is that his
persona is now fresh and novel; his inflections and deportment are rarely seen
outside of Heritage dramas these days.

Anyone who has glimpsed Anderson’s curious fashion sense and
general demeanour will be quickly convinced the man reflects the idiosyncrasy
of his films. Even if Gustav is based in part on Zweig, Anderson is putting
something of himself into the character; a man whom M. Ivan (Bill Murray)
reflects wasn’t even of his time in
his time; he summons a bearing based on a idealised interpretation of his world
and his place in it, and wont be swerved (mostly) by intrusive and gnarly
realities. And Anderson has a lot of fun both venerating Gustav and depicting
his peccadillos. He is outwardly unflappable, the picture of gentility. Yet he also
takes pride in servicing the elderly residents of the Hotel (one of whose
devotion, Madame D played by Tilda Swinton, in some very impressive old age
prosthetics, sets in motion the chain of events in question). His slightly camp
demeanour lends Gustav an indeterminate sexuality, remarked on disparagingly by
Dmitri (Adrien Brody) the son of the ex-Madame D, requiring him to defend
himself in prison, and provoking the jealousy of Zero when he flirts with his
beloved Agatha (Sairose Ronan using, of course, her natural accent). His
greeting of “darling” has the theatrical abandon of a luvvie, and this larger
than life inscrutability is the perfect centre to Anderson’s outlandish story.
Even when Gustav’s facade crumbles, despairing over the meaninglessness of life
or losing it in a confessional booth, the pleasure comes from seeing that composure
demolished while his cadences remain intact. Then there’s his love of poetry;
his daily sermons to staff include daily recitals during which an uninterested
congregation are not expected to pay attention. This simultaneous elegance and
mockery encompasses Hotel, identifying
the picture as a comedy of opposites. Anderson is much more willing than before
to play with extremes, be it of manners and vulgarity or civility and violence.

If the man out of time quality lends the picture a tinge of sadness,
the framing device serves to emphasises this. Times pass, entropy increases; we
no longer fit in with the changing tomes and crumble or decay. Anderson
captures this through showing the extremes of age, and the ungraspable
nostalgia for a time that probably didn’t exist (Moonrise Kingdom is awash with this, and at times its depiction of
young love carries a slightly uncomfortable vibe). But I disagree with those
who suggest it’s a more persistent theme here; it’s merely more identifiable
because Anderson has established broader tonal boundaries. I quite recall the
same criticisms with each of his new films; that he’s stylistically distinct
but essentially vacuous. Or the ones who say finally, this one shows
he has some depth after all. And I can only conclude you either dig his style
and personality or you don’t. It’s no use hoping he’ll “mature” or find a
different voice. If you ask for that you’re looking for the wrong thing from
the wrong filmmaker (not dissimilarly, those suggesting Tarantino has any
depth, or that his films are about anything, are barking up the wrong tree).

Indeed, while Anderson has clearly honed his skills he
admirably appears to have little interest in developing his technique; he knows
what he likes in terms of framing and (lack of) camera movement. His choice to
use three different aspect ratios, reflecting the different time frames, is noticeable
but not distracting, which is how it should be really (no one I saw the film
commented on this, if they even consciously noticed the changes). Anderson
doesn’t attempt to imbue any great psychology into his choice, it’s purely
aesthetic and instructive of the narrative form; I’ve seen the case made that
the 1:37:1 of the main body of the film reflects the typical aspect ratio of
films of that period (1930s) and accordingly 2:35:1 widescreen resembles the
grand productions of the 1960s, while 1:85:1 for the 1985 and present scenes is
indicative of the modern standard format. That may be the case, although Anderson doesn’t seem to have endorsed
that view per se, but the latter two are surely somewhat arbitrary and
interchangeable since each is as commonly used in either era. Anderson’s
choices were based on a desire to shoot in the Academy ratio, for its
compositional possibilities; additional interpretation seems like overlaying
meaning to an extent.

Notably, he has said he hadn’t realised how slow-paced the
opening time frames are in comparison to the mayhem of the 1930s section but
that it seemed completely appropriate in context – and it does. I think that’s
illustrative. For all the fine crafting Anderson is no more inviting of
elaborate readings of sustained subtexts, themes and compositional elements than,
say, the Coen Brothers. Robert D. Yeoman, Anderson’s regular cinematographer
lends the images a richness that recalls Jean Pierre Jeunet. Composer Alexandre
Desplat clearly needs to be guided or inspired to do his best work. His score
for the recent The Monuments Men is
horrible, but this is great stuff, perfectly complementing his director’s
pacing and tone (there are a number of singularly different songs and pieces
from other musicians also, typically of the director).

Fiennes is the glue of the film; he informs its attitude and
(obviously, it’s an Anderson film) quirkiness. Those around him are accordingly
little more than amused caricatures and cameos. On the one hand, so many great
performers have rarely been used to so little end (Murray barely registers,
even though it’s always nice to see him). On the other, the constant parade of
familiar faces is a delirious delight. Besides Murray, Monuments Men co-star Bob Balaban turns up for a scene (The Society
of the Crossed Keys sequence, featuring a steady succession of concierges to
come to the aid of one of their own, is a comic highlight and includes Fisher
Stevens and Anderson semi-regular Waris Ahluwalia amongst its faces).Of the Anderson regular-regulars, Owen Wilson
and Jason Schwartzman appear as concierges; there’s something very resonant of
the latter’s general pose and air in Revolori’s Zero. The biggest problem with
these actors is that you’re left wanting more. Léa Seydoux, Jude Law, Mathieu
Amalric, Harvey Keitel (randomly presenting himself as at-very-least topless in
his prison scenes). Anderson may have hit upon Adrien Brody’s most perfect
physical depiction, his gangly frame exaggerated by a tailored greatcoat and a wild
mess of sky bound hair. He’d look at home in Disney’s 101 Dalmations. It’s fun to see him acting the villain too, since
he’s often called on to supply doleful sympathy. We don’t see nearly enough of
Edward Norton, and Henckels is a little too close temperamentally to the scout
master in Moonrise Kingdom; Anderson
needs to give him the full Brody treatment next time out.

Aside from Fiennes, and his double act with the devoted
Revolori (who, as the straight man, gets none of the credit but should be
congratulated for his deceptively simple work), the two actors who make the
biggest splash are also from the Anderson repertory company. Both also appeared
in Life Aquatic. Perhaps it’s just
because I always find them a pleasure to watch, but there just isn’t enough of
them. Jeff Goldblum throws out less of the pauses and inflected speech patterns
than usual as Deputy Kovacs but he makes no less of an impression (including in
a scene that… well, with this and Inside
Llewyn Davis it doesn’t seem to be felines’ year in film; perhaps worrying
also that they’re also my favourites of 2014 so far). Then there’s Willem
Defoe, enjoying himself immensely in dogged psycho mode with a touch of the
vampiric (he also gets some great extended motorcycle shots).

Defoe’s Joplin is key to one of the film’s best sequences,
although there are so many it’s difficult to single any out. The pursuit of a
freshly prison-broken Gustav takes in only-in-Anderson-land cable cars and high
flung monasteries before arriving at an extended chase of Joplin that wouldn’t
look out of place in Fantastic Mr Fox.
There’s a larky Road Runner quality
here, in particular the showdown with Joplin. That Mr Fox feel is also very evident in the preceding prison break,
which sees the inmates follow a truly ridiculous route to freedom. The sudden
lurches into ultra-violence are a strange departure for the refined director.But they are still shot with the signature
remove of an unobtrusive and rigid camera; which serves to make the joke an
extra sick one, a punch line where you didn’t expect it.

It won't be long before Wes Anderson celebrates 20 years of (big
screen) movie making, so it’s nice to see how he has expanded his audience of
late; rather than redefining a niche, there appears to be a guaranteed
reception for whatever he has to offer. Before it seemed a little bit as if The Royal Tenenbaums would remain the
never to be repeated breakout success. The
Grand Budapest Hotel looks to be his highest grossing film yet (worldwide).
It’s easy to see why as it’s his most accessible, vibrant and star-laden. It’s
a much-deserved hit too, since this is one of his best. If Hotel doesn’t make
regular appearances in the year’s end Top 10 lists it will only serve to highlight
what a great year it’s been.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vampire Academy (2014) My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on
the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct
Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire
Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if
you added vampires to Heathers, you
would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately
inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from
Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish
leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to
surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young
Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel
storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation
crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like,
hoping…

Russian Doll Season One (SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

Out of Africa (1985) I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been
a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity
warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic
romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the
allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas
and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed
locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as
all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see
if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Split (2016) (SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based
filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of
only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several
of his pictures, including his last, The
Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low
budget horror arena. Split continues
that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to
bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically
uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t
always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage
girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best
intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes
and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the
end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Django Unchained (2012) (MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has
regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at
very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django
Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a
director in Kill Bill), I was
pleasantly surprised by Inglourious
Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in
its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular
protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic.
As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was
operating at his zenith. Django Unchained
is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his
all-important aesthetic pr…

Starship Troopers (1997) (SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Prediction 2019 Oscars Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015) (SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the
best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but
only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained
such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an
emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost
Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing.
Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one
that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy
franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for
stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best
of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s
Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation
and absen…

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) (SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.